<div dir="ltr">Hi Daniel, hi Sam,<div><br></div><div>Except if I don't understand your idea, copying the result of the "volo create" command is exactly what I've done in my Sugarizer ActivityTemplate directory [1]. So a new developer just need to copy this directory to create its new activity.</div>
<div><br></div><div>The problem is that currently the sugar-web framework for Sugarizer is slightly different than the one for Sugar. It's mainly related to datastore.js and dbus.js that use localstorage and querystring handling. I'm sure it could be re-conciliated if we find a way to differentiate running in Sugar and running in Sugarizer. In my opinion, it's the major issue, then developers will be free to use any development environment.</div>
<div><br></div><div>@Daniel, You're right, I'm going to update the png.</div><div><br></div><div> Lionel.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>[1] <a href="https://github.com/llaske/Sugarizer/tree/master/activities/ActivityTemplate">https://github.com/llaske/Sugarizer/tree/master/activities/ActivityTemplate</a></div>
</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2014-02-15 21:26 GMT+01:00 Daniel Narvaez <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:dwnarvaez@gmail.com" target="_blank">dwnarvaez@gmail.com</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr"><div>Yeah my concern with that was conficts between files with are checked in git and those pulled by volo. Normally you don't want to include the libs in git for that reason. Though here it's probably fine because people won't base their activities on the git repository, just on the files contained in it. So that's probably the best solution. And we can link directly to the zip file in the documentation.<br>
</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><div><div class="h5"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 15 February 2014 20:52, Sam Parkinson <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:sam.parkinson3@gmail.com" target="_blank">sam.parkinson3@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><p dir="ltr">I totally agree we need to do that, or maybe we could just include the libs in sugarlabs/sugar-web-template? Most people know how to press the download as zip button on github.</p>
<div class="gmail_quote"><div><div>On Feb 15, 2014 11:10 PM, "Daniel Narvaez" <<a href="mailto:dwnarvaez@gmail.com" target="_blank">dwnarvaez@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"></div></div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><div>
<div dir="ltr">On 14 February 2014 21:27, Lionel Laské <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:lionel@olpc-france.org" target="_blank">lionel@olpc-france.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div>2014-02-14 14:13 GMT+01:00 Daniel Narvaez <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:dwnarvaez@gmail.com" target="_blank">dwnarvaez@gmail.com</a>></span>:<div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr"><div>Though I would like Sugarizer to be gradually merged into sugar-web and the differences between the two environments to be reduced as much as possible. Tons of do this on osbuild, do that on sugarizer is not going to be maintainable.<br>
</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></div><div>+1. Be sure that I don't want to transform Sugarizer into a new Sugar, the more Sugar and Sugarizer could have in common, the better it will be.</div><div><div>
<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr"><div>
<br>My main doubt is the node dependency, I tend to think we should require it outside osbuild too. There are just too many useful tools in the node ecosystem these days to avoid it... But of course there is an argument that it would be making the barrier higher.</div>
</div></blockquote><div><br></div></div><div>I'm a big fan of node.js but yes, I think it's a barrier. My dream is to have only a dependence on the browser and on... copy file. Even git is too complex for me!</div>
</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>What about publishing the result of volo create as a zip and changing the documentation to point to it instead of the command. It seems like that would remove the barrier and at the same time allow to use volo when needed/wanted. Of course we first need to actually make a sugar-web that works both in the browser and in sugar but as soon as that's done...<br>
</div></div></div></div>
<br></div></div><div>_______________________________________________<br>
Sugar-devel mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org" target="_blank">Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel" target="_blank">http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel</a><br>
<br></div></blockquote></div>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br></div></div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">-- <br>Daniel Narvaez<br>
</font></span></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div>